## "THE PEASANT QUESTION AND SOCIAL-DEMOCRACY IN BAVARIA (1893–1896)"

[Not earlier than September 1900 — not later than the first half of April 1902. Munich]¹

**B. K. M. Subject heading: The Peasant Question**
**Catalogue number: Bavar 1981**

"The Peasant Question and Social-Democracy in Bavaria (1893–1896)."
Printing and Publishing House of Wörlein & Co. Nuremberg.
(Date written in pencil: 1896).

[A small pamphlet of 24 pages, compiled by the Bavarian social-democratic party leadership by decision of the Nuremberg party convention (1896) to publish a leaflet on the attitude of Bavarian social-democracy to "agrarian questions" "in the spirit of the tactics of the social-democratic faction in the state parliament, approved by the party convention." P. 1.]

The pamphlet is divided into small sections, the first of which is "General Observations" (pp. 1–3) and begins with an unfinished quotation from Engels ("the peasant—a very important factor in population, production, and political power").

In Bavaria, 80% of agricultural enterprises are small and medium-sized (only 2.3% are large, over 100 hectares).
Indebtedness exceeds 1½ billion marks: interest consumes approximately 7/3 of the net income from the land.

"Broad strata of peasantry are already caught in growing oppression and distress and appear to be doomed to a more or less imminent ruin, unless the state comes to their aid. Representatives of the most diverse economic views are in agreement on this, and as conservative a man as Professor Schmoller could pronounce the following gloomy prophecy: 'If this process (of increasing indebtedness) continues unhindered, we shall probably within 20–30 years, in any case within 50–60 years, face the complete expropriation of our peasant and other landed property.'" (P. 3.)

"The Peasant Movement" (pp. 3–4)—previously the peasants were "politically indifferent" and followed the agrarians; now they are beginning to awaken and understand that the agrarians are their enemies. | Apart from commonplaces, absolutely not a single fact about the "peasant movement." |

"Grain Tariffs" (pp. 4–5), an explanation of their harm to peasants—these tariffs from 1880–1889 robbed the German people of 1,140 million marks.

98.7% of agricultural enterprises in Germany | with land under 50 hectares—33½ million hectares of grain land
(only 4/10 % of enterprises with over 50 hectares—9⅜ million hectares of grain land)

(P. 5: such is the profit of peasant-landowners.)

"Charitable Handouts" (pp. 5–6). Sugar tax, tax on vodka, etc.

"Parties" (pp. 6–7). "The Centre loves to parade itself as a special representative of the peasants" (6). . . . (But now its influence is beginning to decline. . . .)

"Social-Democracy" (pp. 7–11). Ultramontane lies that social-democrats want to destroy peasantry.

Social-democrats are democrats and fight for the liberation of all working people (8).

As for "rural laborers," this is self-evident.

"But no less does the mass of smaller, self-managing peasants, by definition, belong to social-democracy" (8).

9/10 of the class of agricultural proprietors in Bavaria are "self-managing farmers" (bold type in the original), "that is, must be counted among those who conduct their enterprises through their own labor and that of their family members." These peasants differ from the proletariat. . . . "These peasants differ from modern proletarians in economic terms only in that they still remain proprietors of their means of production" (8) (italics by the author).

. . . . "It would be . . . very shortsighted to see in the peasant's clinging to his land nothing but reprehensible 'fetishism of property'" (9).

Socialism is "the natural ally of peasants against capital" (9) (italics by the author).

"True, social-democracy cannot contemplate measures that would halt or reverse the necessary development of the productive forces, which would in any case be impossible" (9). But it cannot remain indifferent to the ruin (Untergang) of "such a significant portion of the people" (9).

"The situation of oppressed peasants is close to its (social-democracy's) heart, as is that of workers. It wishes to help them energetically in their struggle against capital and the fisc, to protect them from all harm as taxpayers, as debtors, as those having rights to forest and pasture use, as producers of agricultural products necessary for the people's subsistence—in short, to improve, as far as it is able, the conditions of their existence and struggle, in order thus to spare them, where possible, from the hardships and sacrifices of the perturbations, and at the same time to gain points of support for an organic restructuring of society" (9, italics by the author).

Social-democracy does this both from the standpoint of the general welfare and from the direct interest of the workers' movement: peasants being proletarianized, upon arriving in cities, worsen the situation of workers.

"Furthermore, it is undoubtedly true that economic decline at the present time leads most peasants to degeneration" (9), and the struggle for socialism requires strong people. "Social-democracy has not the slightest interest in promoting the exodus of peasants from the land and their degeneration; on the contrary, it has every reason to fight both vigorously and to strive toward the goal that peasants, by improving the conditions of their labor, might make ends meet in their agricultural work" (9). In exactly the same way, peasants are interested in the living standard of workers being higher: purchasing power.

"From this it is evident how closely linked the industrial and agrarian questions are and that there exists no contradiction between workers and peasants, but rather a far-reaching community of interests" (10).

"Social-democracy, accordingly, stands decidedly on the side of the peasant; it must and will do everything that is at all permissible to make his lot more bearable and to ease his transition to a higher form of production. The greater the number of peasants whom social-democracy can spare from the abyss of sinking to the status of proletarians and whom it can already win for itself as peasants, the sooner and more easily will the social restructuring be accomplished. It does not serve her if she had to wait with this restructuring until capitalist production has everywhere developed to its ultimate consequences, until the last petty tradesman and the last small peasant has fallen victim to capitalist large-scale enterprise. The material sacrifices that must be made from public funds in this sense in the interests of peasants can only from the standpoint of capitalist economics appear to be wasted money; nevertheless they are an excellent investment, because they perhaps spare ten times the amount in the costs of social reorganization altogether" (10).

"Finally, there is also the question of land culture to be considered," which (land culture) will "be impaired" by the ruin of peasant economy, and all the people and consequently social-democracy are interested in "soil cultivation."

"Proceeding from all these considerations, social-democrats have for years in a series of countries—in Denmark, France, Belgium, Switzerland, etc.—most vigorously advocated not merely in the interests of rural laborers but also in those of peasants, as a result of which talk of the 'peasant-hostility' of social-democrats, to the chagrin of their opponents, has increasingly lost its effectiveness" (10).

Especially in Switzerland—the "Peasants' and Workers' Union" in the canton of Basel-Land under the leadership of a social-democrat, etc. In Hesse, in Bavaria—in the state parliaments, social-democrats have demonstrated that they work diligently "on genuine improvement of agricultural conditions" (11).

"And the time will come when peasants, like workers, will understand that the suffering of both is essentially identical, because both alike, though in different forms, are exploited and enslaved, and that therefore they must hand in hand conduct the struggle against the common enemy—capitalism, which can only be defeated by the united efforts of all the oppressed and exploited, in the city as well as in the countryside, under the banner of social-democracy" (11). (End of the section on social-democracy.)

"Feed Shortage" (p. 11)—the Junkers against aid to those who suffered crop failure ("it has a demoralizing effect"), social-democracy is for it (in 1893 in the Bavarian state parliament).

"Forest Rights and Combating Poaching" (pp. 12–13). The forest ought to belong to the whole nation—such is the standpoint of social-democracy. Social-democracy "emphatically advocated for the unimpaired fulfillment of forest rights" (13)—therefore it supported the new forest law bill, which "introduced the elimination of forced redemption," etc.

"Livestock Insurance" (pp. 13–14). Social-democrats opposed the law that passed (in the state parliament?), because it creates too bureaucratic a machine and provides only half the compensation.

"Movable Property Insurance" (pp. 14–15). The Centre demands this only for appearance's sake and took it back in committee. Social-democrats demand the prohibition of private insurance and the establishment of state fire insurance. The chamber rejected this (one Ultramontane declared that this is "a further step toward the socialist state"—this is "a gross exaggeration," but it is true that development is moving toward the transition of private activity into public activity, and that in the interests of socialism it is necessary "to displace capitalist exploitation from ever new spheres" (15)).

"Ground Rents" (pp. 15–19)—originating from feudal times. Feudal payments remained in Bavaria until 1848 (and in 1848 the fathers of today's (17) clericals and conservatives spoke out most strongly against their abolition).

But "Relief" (the "Redemption Law" of 1848) still left heavy burdens on the peasantry: interest on capitalized* "ground redemption payments" is paid until 1935 (that is, it should be extinguished by the year 1935).

* "Ground rent debt" = 143⅞ million, interest per year = 5¾ million marks. Plus about 2 million "ground payments of private law character."

"As one can see, the matter is in no way such as some might think—that a simple abolition of ground rents would harm only former landowners. Rather the matter is quite the opposite: the former landowners long ago received the redemption payments due to them, so that it may be completely indifferent to them what happens further. Therefore the situation is hopelessly entangled (18). For every reduction in ground rents strikes exclusively at the state treasury, that is, at all taxpayers."

Social-democracy would most willingly wish to "eliminate ground rents," but this is now unthinkable: a loss of state revenue of 13 million per year. The best "way out*) is effective acceleration of the redemption of ground rents" (19). Social-democrats proposed to lower the payment from 4% to 3% and to use the freed percentage (4 minus 3) for redemption. The majority of the state parliament did not agree.

*) "Under these circumstances and so long as we move in the vicious circle into which we are driven, on the one hand, by the past and, on the other, by capitalist present" (19).

"State Mortgage Bank" (pp. 20–23). To take credit away from usurers and transfer it to the state.

"Mortgage debts—nationalization—an old socialist (21) programmatic demand" (Communist Manifesto of 1848, in which work? by Fr. Engels, etc.).

In Bavaria this demand appears for the first time in the Nuremberg "state parliament electoral program of 1887."

((Against the Centre, which introduced (pp. 22–23) in the year ? (1895 or thereabouts) such a project, but later backed away from it.))

"Conclusion" (pp. 23–24). Social-democrats are for aid to peasants as "citizens of the state." The absurdity of tales about social-democrats' "hostility toward peasants."

---

¹The approximate date has been established on the basis that the library catalogue number of the pamphlet excerpted by Lenin is given in German, and the pamphlet itself, which deals with the attitude of Bavarian social-democracy to the peasant question, was in all probability obtained by Lenin from a Munich library when he lived in Munich.